Trolls, or trolling behaviour ...how do we deal with these isues as an online community?

@JTT,

JTT- OmSig is more lucid than most and knows his History. He is miles ahead of Cyclops and is, in my estimation, to be prized because he asks the right questions!

2 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

JTT- OmSig is more lucid than most and knows his History.
He is miles ahead of Cyclops and is, in my estimation,
to be prized because he asks the right questions!

Thank u, MASSAGAT. I 've always had questions spontaneously emerging from me, since I was a small kid.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You're welcome, OmSigDAVID. I think the major reason, but not the only one, that I like your posts, is that you manage beautifully to uphold the rights of the individual while insisting that the individual also has responsibilities.

2 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

It's a delicate balancing act.

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

You're welcome, OmSigDAVID. I think the major reason, but not the only one, that I like your posts,
is that you manage beautifully to uphold the rights of the individual while insisting that the individual
also has responsibilities.

Well, I call them as I see them; that 's the fun of posting.

The individual also has responsibilities, but not in all cases, in my opinion.
In a bilateral contract, by definition each side has a responsibility to perform.
On the other hand, I have a right to go to Church, but I have no duty to do so.
I have a right to vote in School Board elections, but no duty to do so;
indeed, I have never voted in a School Board election
(not knowing the candidates, nor any disputed issues involved).

I have a right to select a favorite color (I prefer red), but I have no duty to do so.
I have the right to enjoy the beauty of the weather, but no duty to do so.

In my vu, some rights are attended by responsibilities,
whereas others are not.

David

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It's a delicate balancing act.

Sometimes; not always.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

i once considered a career walking tight rope over an alligator pit

now that's a delicate balancing act

2 Replies

@djjd62,

Yes--but Dave does it without a pole.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Yes--but Dave does it without a pole.

So what - I can do it without a czech.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

i'll never forget the time i found out my father had psychic abilities

we we're at a track and field event, when we met a young man carrying a long pole over his shoulder, my father inquired of the fellow, "Are you a pole vaulter?"
the young man responded, "no i'm ukrainian, but how did you know my name was Valter?"

1 Reply

@djjd62,

That is just scary...how did your dad explain this ability ? Wink

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

i once considered a career walking tight rope over an alligator pit

now that's a delicate balancing act

Well, that coud be dangerous, because u coud hurt an innocent alligator, if u fall on him.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You've taken to representing reptiles, eh? Times are tough down here, too.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

You've taken to representing reptiles, eh? Times are tough down here, too.

Its only fair (pro bono reptilo).

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I think that my comment about rights and responsibilites was much too truncated.

Let me expand-
Our narrow and selfish preoccupation with rights is a moral, spiritual health warning that all is not well with our society. In earlier ages, people focused on their moral and social responsibilities rather than complaining about their lack of rights. They also expected others to behave in the best interests of society. It worked because there was a clearer understanding that responsibilities before God and man for one’s own actions trumped rights every time. And peer pressure (not to mention legal enforcement) strengthened that concept.

3 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

Well said MASSAGAT. Of course this was before we all ran away and hid in little boxes. Careful pruning of the immediate family was done with the delicacy of a bulldozer. We have sole parent families, marriages where both think the dogs are their kids, communities where no-one knows who lives next to them, and all so we dont have to interact or communicate with people. Because people no longer identify with other people there is an increasing emphasis on rights to keep others behaving whereas what we really require is for people to know us and respect us through familiarity.

1 Reply

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

I think that my comment about rights and responsibilites was much too truncated.

Let me expand-
Our narrow and selfish preoccupation with rights is a moral, spiritual health warning
that all is not well with our society.

Well, there has been a competition for scarce resources, from which economic well-being,
good nourishment, and happiness resulting from discretionary spending have been obtained.
In common with other forms of life, humans have sought to provide as well for themselves as possible,
drawing sustenance and delight from the environment, with their modifications thereof.

MASSAGAT wrote:

In earlier ages, people focused on their moral and social responsibilities
rather than complaining about their lack of rights.

I believe that is true, thinking back to the Pilgrims,
who were motivated by their religious precepts.

MASSAGAT wrote:

They also expected others to behave in the best interests of society.

Well, in that historical setting, of emigration for religious practices,
that may have been true, so long as the travellers bore true faith
to the purpose of their journey, but as to their progeny,
and how well thay became convinced to follow in their parents'
philosophical footsteps: that may be a more difficult matter.
Thay may well be inclined to a more natural selfishness,
unless their parents succeed in convincing them.

MASSAGAT wrote:

It worked because there was a clearer understanding that
responsibilities before God and man for one’s own actions
trumped rights every time.

I have been influenced by the accounts of experiences of people who have returned from death
(i.e., no EKG, no EEG, nor respiration for several minutes) in hospitals,
whose consensus (of those who had memories thereof) was that
after our incarnate lives are complete, we judge our lives by 2 criteria, to wit:
1. Love
and
2. learning.
This supports your ideas concerning unselfishness,
or the creation of happiness in others.
www.IANDS.org

David

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Because people no longer identify with other people there is an increasing emphasis on rights to keep others behaving whereas what we really require is for people to know us and respect us through familiarity.

it is deeper than that....it is a lack of faith, a spiritual emptiness that drives this movement towards making huge lists of rules and backing them up with enforcement mechanisms. We dont believe in ourselves, we dont believe in other people, we dont believe in anything. We are just trying to make it till morning, and for that we need rules around here, damn it!

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Because people no longer identify with other people there is an increasing emphasis on rights to keep others behaving whereas what we really require is for people to know us and respect us through familiarity.
it is deeper than that....it is a lack of faith, a spiritual emptiness that drives this movement towards making huge lists of rules and backing them up with enforcement mechanisms. We dont believe in ourselves, we dont believe in other people, we dont believe in anything. We are just trying to make it till morning, and for that we need rules around here, damn it!

What woud Marx say about your "spiritual" notions?
Do thay dispute his materialism ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

What woud Marx say about your "spiritual" notions?
Do thay dispute his materialism ?

I will if they don't.

Marx, a name drop I suspect, defines value in a way that promotes the interests of the manual worker and the efforts of the discoverer and the organiser are regarded as valueless. This cannot be said to be in error. It is the correct view within the circular argument Marx erected. It is only wrong for his opponents. It is not reasons that decide whether one is a supporter or an opponent of Marxism but life itself.

His thought is "Rationalistic" and a direct descendent of Puritanism. It starts from Material and not from the soul. It denies soul, of individuals, generations, cultures, Estates and peoples. It looks on men and women as things. It is a perfect philosophy for impatient and ill-bred control freaks and when Marxists have had power they have treated men and women as things. Once soul is denied there is no alternative except the resignation of the Stoic.

Marxism is the deadly enemy of the Roman Catholic Church because of that. Those who attack the Church are closet Marxists. Dupes of Marxists mostly. Nothing wrong with that of course. Life will settle the matter one way or the other.

0 Replies

Trolls, or trolling behaviour ...how do we deal with these isues as an online community?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know